Leaker, Liberal, Skeptic, Spy.

  • by:
  • 09/21/2022

To paraphrase the classic spy thriller Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, there was a mole right at the top of US intelligence—and they've been there for years.

It appears we have a “whistlemole” in the White House. Are they a leaker? A liberal? A deep-stater? A spy? As the master novelist John le Carré says, “The more identities a man has, the more they express the person they conceal.”

The whistlemole wasn’t on that call. They heard conversations about a conversation about a conversation—and what they heard may not have even been true.

The whistlemole has been waiting for their chance to strike and undo an election whose outcome they have never accepted. They are a creature of the deep state, self-righteous in their cushy federal job, entitled in believing they know better than the American people. They know who should and should not be president—not the voters. So they concocted a way to change history.

The complaint concerns the phone call President Trump had with the incoming president of Ukraine, Volodomyr Zelensky, on the 25th of July. President Zelensky had just won a come-from-behind victory. Trump called to congratulate him. It was a brief conversation that touched on a few points of mutual interest to the two leaders.

The whistlemole wasn’t on that call. They heard conversations about a conversation about a conversation—and what they heard may not have even been true. They may have gotten swirled up in a game of intelligence community telephone tag in which the real facts got garbled and distorted with each retelling. Perhaps they were waiting in deep cover for their opportunity.

All we know for certain is that what the whistlemole has achieved is maximum disruption and chaos—and little to no oversight or accountability.

[caption id="attachment_180593" align="aligncenter" width="1920"]The Media The Media[/caption]


According to the complaint, President Trump leaned on Zelensky to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumed Democratic nominee to battle President Trump in 2020.

Liberals cried foul: the sitting incumbent using his foreign policy ties to dig up campaign dirt? That would be terrible if it were true—but it isn’t. Biden isn’t even the nominee, for one thing. He is very much a part of the Russia narrative and has questionable connections to Ukraine, for another. Biden, like President Trump, is not above the law, and among any president’s duty is enforcement of that law.

Where was the whistlemole when Biden admitted this back in 2018? Where was the outraged media coverage? This open admission has never been investigated. Media call it all “unsubstantiated” and move on.

What is truly amazing is how quickly the hearsay of a whistlemole became the unchallenged gospel of the media. They finally had their hero; they finally had their Trump vanquisher—not from the halls of Congress but from the stale, windowless, septic offices of the Washington bureaucracy.

According to the transcript of the call, which the entire world has been able to read for a week, Trump asks Zelensky to look into the 2016 elections and Crowdstrike, on the theory that Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 deleted emails may still exist on a server in Ukraine. The media have had a field day blasting this theory, but it’s entirely possible that the President of the United States knows something they don’t. He is privy to intelligence briefings that they are not. Most random people on the street know plenty of things the media doesn’t. Ben Rhodes, then an aide to President Obama, famously said that most reporters “literally know nothing.”

Maybe Trump overheard a conversation about the server, as the whistlemole heard about Trump’s call with Zelensky? Perhaps the server story is only unsubstantiated because Obama refused to look into it, and Presidents Trump and Zelensky now have the opportunity to. “Unsubstantiated” does not mean “false.” It simply means it hasn’t been verified. Moreover, Ukraine and the US have a treaty under which crimes can be mutually investigated.

At any rate, Trump has every right to ask about 2016. The Democrats have accused him, “fact-free” as the media likes to say, of colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Robert Mueller investigated and found that allegation to be totally uncorroborated. But unanswered questions regarding the origins of the fake collusion narrative remain and the allegation itself tars Donald Trump’s presidency every night on MSNBC, and on every page of most of the nation’s newspapers.

When Trump does ask about Biden (not eight times, as the whistlemole alleges, but just once) he specifically asks about a Ukrainian prosecutor who was “shut down” because he was looking into Biden’s son Hunter and his lucrative employment with a Ukrainian gas firm—despite having no qualifications for the job. That arrangement looks very much like a payoff, albeit an “unsubstantiated” one (that is until it gets appropriately investigated). But wait! They fired the prosecutor. Why? Well, Biden himself could have answered the question; he bragged about getting the prosecutor fired on video for the whole world to see. Biden even made an explicit quid pro quo, as the sitting vice president: fire the prosecutor or you don’t get a billion US dollars for your military.

Where was the whistlemole when Biden admitted this back in 2018? Where was the outraged media coverage? This open admission has never been investigated. Media call it all “unsubstantiated” and move on.

But remember, they “literally know nothing” that a Democrat operative doesn’t tell them—or spoon-feed them, more accurately.

[caption id="attachment_180592" align="aligncenter" width="1920"]GOVERNMENT DISRUPTION WHISTLEMOLE STYLE Surveillance[/caption]


The whistlemole did not limit themselves to filling out an “urgent concern” form triggering the impeachment madness. They filled that out on August 12, 2019. The complaint went public on September 25. But on August 28, almost a month before the “urgent concern” matter went public, Democrat Representative Adam Schiff tweeted about it, in detail.

How did Schiff know? Even supposing he had legitimate access, why did he tweet about it instead of keeping the information within proper investigative channels?

Obviously someone—perhaps the whistlemole—leaked it to Schiff, the far left Democrat who has railed most vociferously against Trump, for the purpose of setting the stage for the later public reveal. It was Schiff who misused his perch on the House Intelligence Committee to mislead the country about Russia when he said proof of Trump’s collusion would come out. It didn’t. Because it didn’t exist.  It is Schiff who has yanked Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the impeachment cliff she clearly didn’t want to leap off of. And it is Schiff who evidently received the leak from the whistlemole—for the purpose of setting the stage for the current impeachment drama.

None of this is good for the country. After the Russia hoax, with its “insurance policy” and sexting between intel community paramours, with its high-handed accusations and low-brow tales of Moscow hotel escapades, most Americans no longer trust many of our most important institutions.

The whistlemole has increased the culture of distrust to another level, and, despite the lauding media, is not a hero. They are a leaker, conspiring with liberals to take down the lawfully elected President of the United States.



View All

BREAKING: Former British PM Boris Johnson resigns as MP

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson resigns as MP....

NAOMI WOLF: Were liberal elites so cruel because they have no fun?

We — the targeted — must reckon with the traumatizing fact that we were on the receiving end of cruel...

British patients could be found guilty of discrimination if they refuse care from transgender, non-binary medics

The new rollout suggests that when a patient expresses a desire to be treated by a man or a woman, “t...

© 2023 Human Events, Privacy Policy